Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Retracted

Cardiology Research and Practice has retracted this article. The article was found to contain a substantial amount of material from the following published articles:C. M. S. Kabir, M. M. Haq, S. R. Khan, M. Z. Chowdhury, M. L. Ali, and M. R. Karim, “Safety of radial vs. femoral artery access in coronary angiography,” Bangladesh Heart Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 68–73, 2016, doi: 10.3329/bhj.v30i2.28814 (not cited).M. Brueck, D. Bandorski, W. Kramer, M. Wieczorek, R. Höltgen, and H. Tillmanns, “A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1047–1054, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.016 (not cited).

There are also concerns with the reporting of the study design. The methods state “It was prospective, randomized, single-centre study conducted in the Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, GSVM Medical College, Kanpur, U.P, India, where all cases of diagnostic coronary angiography (CAG) of 1997 consecutive patients for various reasons over a 12-month period (from January 2015 till the end of December 2015) were reviewed for this analysis,” but then that “The choice between transfemoral or transradial artery access was operator’s discretion with right radial approach being the default strategy.” These are mutually exclusive approaches to treatment allocation, that is, randomization versus surgeon discretion. Additionally, a trial registration number is not included.

We were unable to contact the authors.

View the full Retraction here.

References

  1. S. K. Sinha, V. Mishra, N. Afdaali et al., “Coronary angiography safety between transradial and transfemoral access,” Cardiology Research and Practice, vol. 2016, Article ID 4013843, 7 pages, 2016.
Cardiology Research and Practice
Volume 2016, Article ID 4013843, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4013843
Research Article

Coronary Angiography Safety between Transradial and Transfemoral Access

Department of Cardiology, LPS Institute of Cardiology, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh 208002, India

Received 31 July 2016; Accepted 18 September 2016

Academic Editor: Robert Chen

Copyright © 2016 Santosh Kumar Sinha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. L. Campeau, “Percutaneous radial artery approach for coronary angiography,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–7, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. F. Kiemeneij and G. J. Laarman, “Transradial artery Palmaz-Schatz coronary stent implantation: results of a single-center feasibility study,” American Heart Journal, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 14–21, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. F. Kiemeneij, G. J. Laarman, and E. de Melker, “Transradial artery coronary angioplasty,” American Heart Journal, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. S. Jolly, S. Yusuf, J. Cairns et al., “Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomized, parallel group, multicentre trial,” The Lancet, vol. 377, no. 9775, pp. 1409–1420, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Conversion Coefficients for Use in Radiological Protection Against External Radiation, vol. 26, no. 3 of Annals of the ICRP, Publication 74, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1997.
  6. A. Sciahbasi, E. Romagnoli, F. Burzotta et al., “Transradial approach (left vs right) and procedural times during percutaneous coronary procedures: TALENT study,” American Heart Journal, vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 172–179, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. F. Philippe, F. Larrazet, T. Meziane, and A. Dibie, “Comparison of transradial vs. transfemoral approach in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with primary angioplasty and abciximab,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 67–73, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. C. Pristipino, F. Pelliccia, A. Granatelli et al., “Comparison of access-related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery,” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 99, no. 9, pp. 1216–1221, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C. Pristipino, C. Trani, M. S. Nazzaro et al., “Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study,” Heart, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 476–482, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. Y. Louvard, H. Benamer, P. Garot et al., “Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in Octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study),” The American Journal of Cardiology, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 1177–1180, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. J.-Y. Kim and J. H. Yoon, “Transradial approach as a default route in coronary artery interventions,” Korean Circulation Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. G. Plourde, S. B. Pancholy, J. Nolan et al., “Radiation exposure in relation to the arterial access site used for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Lancet, vol. 386, no. 10009, pp. 2192–2203, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Agostoni, G. G. L. Biondi-Zoccai, M. L. de Benedictis et al., “Radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary diagnostic and interventional procedures: systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 349–356, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. Brasselet, T. Blanpain, S. Tassan-Mangina et al., “Comparison of operator radiation exposure with optimized radiation protection devices during coronary angiograms and ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions by radial and femoral routes,” European Heart Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. M. Chag and S. Gupta, “Transradial interventions: our experience,” Indian Heart Journal, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 264–266, 2010. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. M. Brueck, D. Bandorski, W. Kramer, M. Wieczorek, R. Höltgen, and H. Tillmanns, “A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1047–1054, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. V. Rao, F.-S. Ou, T. Y. Wang et al., “Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention. A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 379–386, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. O. Kawashima, N. Endoh, M. Terashima et al., “Effectiveness of right or left radial approach for coronary angiography,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 333–337, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. S.-M. Kim, D.-K. Kim, D.-I. Kim, D.-S. Kim, S.-J. Joo, and J.-W. Lee, “Novel diagnostic catheter specifically designed for both coronary arteries via the right transradial approach. A prospective, randomized trial of Tiger II vs. Judkins catheters,” International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 295–303, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus